Discussion over infant baptism v other forms of baptism

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 92
#31
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
It's one of those things that people decided to do Trade.

And afterwards they thought,

Isn't this brilliant.

And sooooo meaningful.



And others go in for penis mutilation.

Brilliant.


And the Lord said unto them,

Showeth me a nice clean head.


Interpretation Trade.

Interpretation.



Topic's author
#32
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
It's one of those things that people decided to do Trade.

And afterwards they thought,

Isn't this brilliant.

And sooooo meaningful.

Yes, it is meaningful.   And brilliant actually.   

And others go in for penis mutilation.

Brilliant.
Strictly speaking, it is not penis mutilation. That would imply the penis is effectively useless afterwards. Interestingly, some might call it mutation, a form of evolution - survival of the fittest.  

And the Lord said unto them,

Showeth me a nice clean head.
Just silliness. Zed. 



Topic's author
#33
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Skipper_Sr
I don't agree that baptism is meant to save us
"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you," - 1 Peter 3:21a
The context reveals that water symbolises baptism which saves you.   Not that the water saves you, but the baptism of the Spirit, which water baptism symbolises. 

Hence, water baptism does not save. Spirit baptism does. 


Nor do I think all should be baptised. 
Why not?
For what purpose? 
#34
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
HaHa.

Yep, satire is designed to be both silly and meaningful.


But.

The World according to Trade.

Says That,

Zed is silly,

And splashing water on kids isn't.

There you go again.

Interpretation Interpretation Interpretation.
Topic's author
#35
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
There is meaning in symbolism. 

Pouring water on kids' heads is symbolic of the Coming of the Spirit - the same picture as Pentecost. 

I don't think you are silly, but often the words you present don't mean much. 
#36
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,624
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4


The Reverend Tradesecret wrote;


@zedvictor4
There is meaning in symbolism. 
If this bible dunce Tradesecret, (now calling himself  DavidAZ) had been educated by all the scholars that he claims to have been educated by, such as here>

Tradesecret wrote;
“I studiedand was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers fromthe Orthodox Church”. 

And to have memorised the bible as he claimes here>;

Tradesecretwrote: "I have memorised the bible from a very young age, I know it backwardsand in many languages.",#52



then he would  know the exact reason why John the Baptist was cleansing acolytes in the river. But he doesn't.

Historian Josephus tell us why this ritual had to take place and strangely enough, so does the gospel of Mathew,.  Only our resident Reverend Tradesecret/ DavidAZ is far too bible ignorant and cretinous to know this.

And lets not forget, this is the same Reverend , Pastor and Chaplain that wishes that " religion should be abolished".!!!!#52 saying

Tradesecretwrote:" I have never believed in religion. Religion ought to be abolished from my point of view"



Yet here he is preaching the merits of baptism.

You couldn't make it up.
#37
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Best.Korea

.
Best Korea,

YOUR QUOTE IN AGREEING THAT GIRLS/WOMAN ARE 2ND CLASS CITIZENS WITHIN THE BIBLE, PRAISE!: "I think its important that a person remembers his baptism."

"His" baptism, where you didn't include girls or woman in the baptism process?  Therefore you agree in Jesus' inspired words where woman are 2nd class citizens, and nothing but extra baggage while upon earth, where their only use is to give birth for more Christian soldiers, praise!

JESUS' INSPIRED WORDS SAID: "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

Good for you Best.Korea in being a Christian that accepts Jesus' words in the passage above that show women are 2nd class citizens, praise you!

.

.
#38
Skipper_Sr
Skipper_Sr's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 300
1
2
7
Skipper_Sr's avatar
Skipper_Sr
1
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
Nor do I think all should be baptised. 
Why not?
For what purpose? 
Baptism saves us, and God commands to go out and baptize others. Baptism rituals should be distributed. 

"And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”" - Acts 2:38 

Baptism is stressed to be administered to all
#39
Skipper_Sr
Skipper_Sr's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 300
1
2
7
Skipper_Sr's avatar
Skipper_Sr
1
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't agree that baptism is meant to save us
"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you," - 1 Peter 3:21a
The context reveals that water symbolises baptism which saves you.   Not that the water saves you, but the baptism of the Spirit, which water baptism symbolises. 

Hence, water baptism does not save. Spirit baptism does. 

If we are to separate the "water" baptism from the "Spirit" baptism, is not the Spirit entering through you via the water baptism? Baptism is done with water. I do not understand how you split the two
Topic's author
#40
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Skipper_Sr
Baptism in water does not save us. We are commanded to baptise and then teach others. Matt 28

The Bible separates the two. Water and Spirit. and it also brings them together. 

Yet, baptism doesn't save us. Christ does on the cross. It's his death which pays the penalty for sin. The Baptism of the Spirit is what regenerates our heart from its natural sinful heart to a heart that can trust and believe. 

Water is a symbol of reality - it is not reality.  
#41
Skipper_Sr
Skipper_Sr's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 300
1
2
7
Skipper_Sr's avatar
Skipper_Sr
1
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
Yet, baptism doesn't save us.
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." - Mark 16:16

Are you disagreeing with this? Faith and Baptism save you, but lack of Baptism is not inherently a road to condemnation--only lack of faith is. 
#42
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen

Stephen,

Why is Miss Tradesecret so continually Bible Stupid?  AGAIN, I have to correct her Bible Duncery®️ at her expense in front of the membership!

MISS TRADESECRETS BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE AGAIN:  “I don't agree that baptism is meant to save us. Nor do I think all should be baptised.

As shown once again, Miss Tradesecret goes directly against not only Peter, but Jesus’ inspired words herewith, that does say that baptism is to save you: “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:1)

When is the membership going to learn that they cannot trust Miss Tradesecrets perceived Bible knowledge whatsoever? 



MISS TRADESECRETS BIBLE IGNORANT AND STUPID QUOTE AGAIN: “Yet, baptism doesn't save us. Christ does on the cross. It's his death which pays the penalty for sin”

Again, Miss Tradesecret says that  baptism doesn’t save us, where Mark and the following inspired words of Jesus as God says it does:  “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16)

Isn't it about time Miss Tradesecret takes another vacation from her Bible ineptness, like she has done in the past to save herself from continued embarrassment when it comes to the scriptures?


Stephen, seriously, at what point does the #1 Bible stupid fool Miss Tradesecret realize that she is making an outright fool of herself, IN HER OWN THREAD, and in front of the membership of this respected Religion Forum?!!!!

In correcting Miss Tradesecrets outright Bible Stupidity is a full time job for Jesus and I within this forum!

.



#43
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,624
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
In correcting Miss Tradesecrets outright Bible Stupidity is a full time job for Jesus and I within this forum!

Well someone has to take up the slack, Brother D. 😂

At least you have assistance correcting Tradesecret's, ( he that is now calling himself  DavidAZ) bible duncery. 
#44
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen

.
Stephen,

Besides Miss Tradesecret being so Bible stupid, which is reason enough for her to leave this prestigious Religion Forum,  how about the fact that she doesn't follow this Jesus inspired passage in being a woman: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." (1 Timothy 2:12)

Proof that Miss Tradesecret is a FEMALE in the gender post: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEGZNA4

With Miss Tradesecret being so Bible stupid and a woman that DOES NOT follow Jesus' teachings in being in this Religion forum in the first place, where she is to remain QUIET, as the passage shown above so implies, then why is she still here? Does she have an ungodly fetish in wanting to be made the Bible fool, and going against Jesus words as shown all the time?  What gives?

Again, she is outright an embarrassment to Christianity!
.


#45
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
.
Stephen,

In prayer with Jesus this afternoon, He reminded me that the #1 Bible fool Miss Tradesecret is a terrible example of Christianity as she leads other pseudo-christians to being as Bible stupid as she is as shown within her thread, that myself, and others, have explicitly shown in how Bible ignorant she truly is!  

Therefore, all of the facts shown below are direct ungodly positions that Miss Tradesecret is taking, therefore, she is slapping Jesus in the face by doing so! Here is a recap of  Miss Tradesecrets ungodly facts in the links shown, and Bible passages shown in answering said ungodly facts:

1. MISS TRADESECRET IS A FEMALE IN THE GENDER AREA, AND THEREFORE SHE IS NOT TO TEACH WHERE SHE IS TO "STFU" IN THIS FORUM:
"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." (1 Timothy 2:11)


2. MISS TRADESECRET IS A 12 YEAR OLD GIRL WHERE HER BIRTH DATE WAS IN DECEMBER 31, 2010, WHICH IS AGAINST COC RULES, NONETHELESS; SHE IS NOT TO SPEAK WITHIN THIS FORUM AS A WOMAN:
"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." (1 Timothy 2:11)


3. MISS TRADESECRET IS AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT WHERE SHE SETS A BAD EXAMPLE FOR OTHERS THAT ARE CHRISTIANS:
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)


4. MISS TRADESECRET SETS ANOTHER BAD EXAMPLE TO CHRISTIANS BECAUSE SHE IS ATTRACTED TO THE OPPOSITE SEX:
"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." (Romans 1:24-27)


The irony is that MISS TRADESECRET is truly and embarrassingly shown to be what was proposed in the examples above, and then MELCHARAZ was banned that makes him look like an "Angelic Boy Scout" compared to the ungodly and despicable FACTS shown for Miss Tradesecret above that gets to stay upon this respected Religion Forum!  WTF!?
.

#46
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,624
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas

Indeed Brother D. With this background mentioned in your link and his/her  deeply religious education and position as a Reverend, I don't believe there is anyone more qualified to speak on such matters as those that are being discussed here>>  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9166-transexual-pastor-compares-child-murderer-to-jesus?page=1&post_number=1


#47
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen

.
Stephen,

As if shown in my post #45 where Miss Tradesecret slaps Jesus in the face in being even a pseudo-christian and having all of those mentioned ungodly facts against her, then she outright VIOLATES the Code of Conduct of DEBATEART rules in her being only 12 YEARS OLD since her birthdate was December 31; 2010, as shown herewith: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEJZ1IV 

The COC rules is the following where Miss Tradesecret has to be at least 13 years old to be a member of this Religion Forum:  

Code of Conduct
How to conduct yourself
All users must be a minimum of 13 years of age when creating an account, or older to help comply with any local laws pertaining to Internet usage.


Then the moderators BAN MELCHARAZ, where Miss Tradesecret says that she doesn't have to follow the rules, let alone Jesus' rules as well as shown in my link herewith: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9153/posts/383670
.
Topic's author
#48
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Skipper_Sr
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." - Mark 16:16

Are you disagreeing with this? Faith and Baptism save you, but lack of Baptism is not inherently a road to condemnation--only lack of faith is. 
Two things. If the verse is valid, it still doesn't mention water. Hence, I would say it is talking about Spirit Baptism.  

Secondly, I actually don't think any verse after 8 in Mark 16 is scripture. The oldest manuscripts don't have v. 9-20. I think they were added by others and not the author. 


#49
Skipper_Sr
Skipper_Sr's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 300
1
2
7
Skipper_Sr's avatar
Skipper_Sr
1
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
Two things. If the verse is valid, it still doesn't mention water. Hence, I would say it is talking about Spirit Baptism. 
Are there any examples in the Bible of Baptism being demonstrated without water?
Topic's author
#50
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Skipper_Sr
At Pentecost. 

Baptism was by what appeared to be flames of fire on the head. 
#51
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@Tradesecret
The isssue of baptism seems to stem from what baptism is or what it means. 

For some who do not have infant or child baptism they have what is known as a dedication. 

To explain baptism to a non-infant baptism person, infant baptism is at its core the same as a dedication. But with an extra bonus involved as it rinses humans of origional sin. 

Baptism is also to take the place of circumcision, which is way more evasive than water. If circumcision was for infants, then why not baptism for the same purpose, to welcome a person into thr christian family. 
#52
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@Stephen
What are you implying here?

The children in those reports I posted above-some as young as five were terrified wondering why they were hated and abused by fkn adults!!..
Why were kids hated by adults?

#53
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@Skipper_Sr
Your quote says who ever does not believe. Does not include "who does not baptize". 
Baptism like many things in bible require more than one sentence to describe it. 
#54
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,624
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@hey-yo

The children in those reports I posted above-some as young as five were terrified wondering why they were hated and abused by fkn adults!!..
Why were kids hated by adults?


#55
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,217
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
If Baptizing a kid at a certain "young" age is wrong 
Teaching a kid to swim is good but right?   Younger the better. 

May I suggest these two activities could be combined of sorts 
Like

A Priest swimming instructor teaching kids how to swim with a sneaky baptism. 
Or baptizing kids by teaching them to swim.
 

One could even use it as an excuse.,
For example.  
If you get caught baptizing kids at a young age, ( like most of us have right )   
you can say you were teaching them to swim.  

Thats Evil to a nice gesture in an instant. 

Butttttt swimming is using the body unnaturally thus bringing other verses of the bible into play. 
God is ok with you nits swimming isn't he?
#56
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,217
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
A priest child bathing service probably won't work.

But
To an untrained eye .
Bathing a kid  and baptizing a kid CAN look identical.

Hey There has to be name for a person that baptizes young kids isn't there? 
What about a hairdresser gromming young kids. 

Ok I'll stop now.
#57
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@Stephen
Right. 
Loyalists" i.e. Protestants attack Catholic children as young as five!
Ok so why does this translate to "dont baptize kids/infants?"
#58
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,624
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2

Right. 
Loyalists" i.e. Protestants attack Catholic children as young as five!
Ok so why does this translate to "dont baptize kids/infants?"



These were terrified children wondering why they were hated and abused .  They more than likely didn't understand that it was because their parents has signed them up to a life long membership of their own version of god and religion.



I you want a good example of why children shouldn't be baptised watch this.



"Loyalists" i.e. Protestants attack Catholic children as young as five!


A school run like no other.

"Whatever the rights and wrongs of the cause which began this form of protest, it was lost in the terrified faces of the girls forced to suffer a school run like no other".
.
Woman one: "There must be a reason why we're doing this. There must be. We've had enough fear and we can't take it no more. We don't care."
Woman two: "We don't care; we're like the Jews now, I think."
Woman one: "I mean I wouldn't let my son or my daughter come home from a disco or anything from that Crumlin Road to get in here and it's the only way they can come at night."
Me: "This morning, whatever the wrongs and rights here, a bomb went off close to the children going to school. How did that make you feel?"
Woman one: "I'm past feeling. You can't understand that. I am past feeling. I'm not going to run my ones down for throwing that bomb."
Me: "But you're not a terrorist."
Woman one: "I'm not. No, I'm not a terrorist. No, I'm a mother. I'm a mother of five children."
Me: "Who's to blame for this?"
Woman one: "Themmuns down there."
Me: "How would you have felt this morning if a child had been killed?"
Woman one: "I'd have felt terrible. I'm a mother of five. Yes, it would be like me losing one of my own. I could feel for that mother."
Me: "So you're not past caring."


The very first quote by "woman one", is easily answered.  FKN BAPTISM!

Off you go now.

#59
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen

.
Stephen,

As you are aware, even being a Hell bound Atheist, Jesus has informed me to Bible check the #1 Bible fool Miss Tradesecret!
“Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” (2 Timothy 4:2)

As if I haven't done this before in this  thread of hers shown herewith: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9153/posts/383670  I have to do it AGAIN when Miss Tradesecret is guilty of the following ungodly statements;

MISS TRADESECRET'S QUOTE QUESTIONING JESUS' INSPIRED WORDS WITHIN THE SCRIPTURES: "Two things. If the verse is valid, it still doesn't mention water. Hence, I would say it is talking about Spirit Baptism."  

Barring Miss Tradesecret arguing from "silence," she says "if the verse is valid,"  which goes directly against this passage: “EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5). Doesn't she realize that Jesus is watching her as she questions His written word? (Hebrews 4:13)


MISS TRADESECRET'S QUOTE IN TRYING TO REWRITE JESUS' INSPIRED WORDS OF SCRIPTURE: "Secondly, I actually don't think any verse after 8 in Mark 16 is scripture. The oldest manuscripts don't have v. 9-20. I think they were added by others and not the author. 

What did she just say above? Where in the hell does she get the authority to say that Jesus' inspired words in the scriptures are WRONG?! Has this Bible fool Miss Tradesecret forgot about this Jesus passage herewith relating to the Bible: “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4)


Seriously, at Miss Tradesecrets own good, and not to continually embarrass herself with her outright BIBLE STUPIDISMS®️ in front of the membership ad infinitum, isn't it about time she takes another convenient vacation away from this respected Religion Forum and go into hiding again? At what point is ENOUGH, ENOUGH relative to her being so Bible stupid?!

.





#60
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,624
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas



MISS TRADESECRET'S QUOTE IN TRYING TO REWRITE JESUS' INSPIRED WORDS OF SCRIPTURE:

Reverend Tradesecret wrote:  Secondly, I actually don't think any verse after 8 in Mark 16 is scripture. The oldest manuscripts don't have v. 9-20. I think they were added by others and not the author. 

Brother D. Thomas wrote:  What did she just say above? Where in the hell does she get the authority to say that Jesus' inspired words in the scriptures are WRONG?! Has this Bible fool Miss Tradesecret forgot about this Jesus passage herewith relating to the Bible: “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4)

Barring Miss Tradesecret arguing from "silence," she says "if the verse is valid,"  which goes directly against this passage: “EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5). Doesn't she realize that Jesus is watching her as she questions His written word? (Hebrews 4:13)


Well this is where Tradesecret proves himself to be the contradictory bible dunce s/he clearly is , Brother D. 
In fact, I created a thread on the matter of the ending of Mark's gospel  last year, highlighting it to be a later addition by a  unknown author.

stating: 
Stephen Wrote: "Indeed some bibles still have this abrupt ending at Mark16:8 but those that do have the extended embellished addition will notice that it is usually accompanied the with notes admitting that verses from Mark16:9-20 were added at a much later time and “do not appear in the original manuscript”.
Here>
Is Mark's Gospel Questionable?

So as we can see, The Reverend Tradesecret ( also posting as "new member " DavidAZ)  will deny his own beliefs simply to make himself appear intelligent and scholarly, simply for attention and lack of bible knowledge. ...when in his case its nothing short of plagiarism.